New Generation Computing

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 3–26 | Cite as

The narrowing-driven approach to functional logic program specialization

  • Elvira Albert
  • German Vidal
Special Feature
First Online:
Received:
Revised:

Abstract

Partial evaluation is a semantics-based program optimization technique which has been investigated within different programming paradigms and applied to a wide variety of languages. Recently, a partial evaluation framework for functional logic programs has been proposed. In this framework, narrowing—the standard operational semantics of integrated languages—is used to drive the partial evaluation process. This paper surveys the essentials of narrowing-driven partial evaluation.

Keywords

Program Optimization Partial Evaluation Narrowing 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1).
    Abramov, S. and Glück, R., “The Universal Resolving Algorithm: Inverse Computation in a Functional Language,” inProc. of the 5th Int’l Conf. on Mathematics of Program Construction, Springer LNCS 1837, pp. 187–212, 2000.MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2).
    Albert, E., “Partial Evaluation of Multi-Paradigm Declarative Languages: Foundations, Control, Algorithms and Efficiency,” Ph.D. thesis, DSIC, Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, 2001. Available from URL: http://www.dsic.upv.es/users/elp/papers.html.Google Scholar
  3. 3).
    Albert, E., Alpuente, M., Falaschi, M., Julián, P. and Vidal, G., “Improving Control in Functional Logic Program Specialization,” inProc. of the 5th Int’l Static Analysis Symposium (SAS’98), Springer LNCS 1503, pp. 262–277, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4).
    Albert, E., Alpuente, M., Hanus, M. and Vidal, G., “A Partial Evaluation Framework for Curry Programs,” inProc. of the 6th Int’l Conf. on Logic Programming and Automated Reasoning (LPAR’99), Springer LNAI 1705, pp. 376–395, 1999.Google Scholar
  5. 5).
    Albert, E., Antoy, S. and Vidal, G., “Measuring the Effectiveness of Partial Evaluation in Functional Logic Languages,” inProc. of the 10th Int’l Workshop on Logic-Based Program Synthesis and Transformation (LOPSTR’2000), Springer LNCS 2042, pp. 103–124, 2001.Google Scholar
  6. 6).
    Albert, E., Hanus, M. and Vidal, G., “Using an Abstract Representation to Specialize Functional Logic Programs,” inProc. of the 7th Int’l Conf. on Logic for Programming and Automated Reasoning (LPAR’2000), Springer LNAI 1955, pp. 381–398, 2000.Google Scholar
  7. 7).
    Albert, E., Hanus, M. and Vidal, G., “A Practical Partial Evaluator, for a Multi-Paradigm Declarative Language,” inProc. of the 4th Fuji Int’l Symp. on Functional and Logic Programming (FLOPS’2001), Springer LNCS 2024, pp. 326–342, 2001.Google Scholar
  8. 8).
    Alpuente, M., Falaschi, M., Julián, P. and Vidal, G., “Specialization of Lazy Functional Logic Programs,” inProc. of the ACM SIGPLAN Symp. on Partial Evaluation and Semantics-Based Program Manipulation (PEPM’97) Sigplan Notices, 32, 12, ACM Press, pp. 151–162, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9).
    Alpuente, M., Falaschi, M. and Vidal, G., “Narrowing-driven Partial Evaluation of Functional Logic Programs,” inProc. of the 6th European Symposium on Programming (ESOP’96), Springer LNCS 1058, pp. 45–61, 1996.Google Scholar
  10. 10).
    Alpuente, M., Falaschi, M. and Vidal, G., “Partial Evaluation of Functional Logic Programs,”ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 20, 4, pp. 768–844, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11).
    Alpuente M., Hanus M., Lucas S. and Vidal, G., “Specialization of Inductively Sequential Functional Logic Programs,” inProc. of the 4th ACM SIGPLAN Int’l Conf. on Functional Programming (ICFP’99), 34, 9 ofSigplan Notices, ACM Press, pp. 273–283, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12).
    Antoy, S., “Definitional Trees,” inProc. of the 3rd Int’l Conf. on Algebraic and Logic Programming (ALP’92), Springer LNCS 632, pp. 143–157, 1992.Google Scholar
  13. 13).
    Antoy, S., Echahed, R. and Hanus, M., “A Needed Narrowing Strategy,”Journal of the ACM, 47, 4, pp. 776–822, 2000.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14).
    Baader, F. and Nipkow, T.,Term Rewriting and All That, Cambridge University Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  15. 15).
    Bol, R., “Loop Checking in Partial Deduction,”Journal of Logic Programming, 16, 1&2, pp. 25–46, 1993.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16).
    Bondorf, A., “A Self-Applicable Partial Evaluator for Term Rewriting Systems,” inProc. of the Int’l Joint Conf. on Theory and Practice of Software Development (TAP-SOFT’89), Springer LNCS 352, pp. 81–95, 1989.Google Scholar
  17. 17).
    Bruynooghe, M., de Schreye, D. and Martens, B., “A General Criterion for Avoiding Infinite Unfolding,”New Generation Computing, 11, 1, pp. 47–79, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18).
    Burstall, R. and Darlington, J., “A Transformation System for Developing Recursive Programs,”Journal of the ACM, 24, 1, pp. 44–67, 1977.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19).
    Consel, C. and Danvy, O., “Tutorial Notes on Partial Evaluation,” inProc. of the 20th Annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL’93), ACM Press, pp. 493–501, 1993.Google Scholar
  20. 20).
    Darlington, J. and Pull, H., “A Program Development Methodology Based on a Unified Approach to Execution and Transformation,” inProc. of the IFIP TC2 Workshop on Partial Evaluation and Mixed Computation, North-Holland, pp. 117–131, 1988.Google Scholar
  21. 21).
    De Schreye, D., Glück, R., Jørgensen, J., Leuschel, M., Martens, B. and Sørensen, M., “Conjunctive Partial Deduction: Foundations, Control, Algorihtms, and Experiments,”Journal of Logic Programming, 41, 2&3, pp. 231–277, 1999.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22).
    Etalle, S., Gabbrielli, M. and Marchiori, E., “A Transformation System for CLP with Dynamic Scheduling and CCP,” inProc. of the ACM SIGPLAN Symp. on Partial Evaluation and Semantics-Based Program Manipulation (PEPM’97), volume 32, 12 ofSigplan Notices, ACM Press, pp. 137–150, 1997.Google Scholar
  23. 23).
    Fribourg, L., “SLOG: A Logic Programming Language Interpreter Based on Clausal Superposition and Rewriting,” inProc. of the 2nd IEEE Int’l Symp. on Logic Programming, IEEE Press, pp. 172–185, 1985.Google Scholar
  24. 24).
    Futamura, Y., “Partial Evaluation of Computation Process—An Approach to a Compiler-Compiler,”Higher-Order and Symbolic Computation, 12, 4, pp. 381–391, 1999. Reprint of article inSystems, Computers, Controls 1971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25).
    Gallagher, J., “Tutorial on Specialisation of Logic Programs,” inProc. of the ACM SIGPLAN Symp. on Partial Evaluation and Semantics-Based Program Manipulation (PEPM’93), pp. 88–98, ACM Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  26. 26).
    Giovannetti, E., Levi, G., Moiso, C. and Palamidessi, C., “Kernel Leaf: A Logic plus Functional Language,”Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 42, pp. 363–377, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27).
    Glück, R. and Klimov, A., “Occam’s Razor in Metacomputation: the Notion of a Perfect Process Tree,” inProc. of the 3rd Int’l Workshop on Static Analysis, Springer LNCS 724, pp. 112–123, 1993.Google Scholar
  28. 28).
    Glück, R. and Sørensen, M., “Partial Deduction and Driving are Equivalent,” inProc. of the 6th Int’l Symp. on Programming Language Implementation and Logic Programming (PLILP’94), Springer LNCS 844, pp. 165–181, 1994.Google Scholar
  29. 29).
    Hanus, M., “The Integration of Functions into Logic Programming: From Theory to Practice,”Journal of Logic Programming, 19&20, pp. 583–628, 1994.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30).
    Hanus, M., “A Unified Computation Model for Functional and Logic Programming,” inProc. of 24th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL’97), ACM Press, pp. 80–93, 1997.Google Scholar
  31. 31).
    Hanus, M., Antoy, S., Koj, J., Sadre, R. and Steiner, F., “PAKCS 1.2: The Portland Aachen Kiel Curry System User Manual,” Technical report, University of Kiel, Germany, 2000.Google Scholar
  32. 32).
    Hanus, M. and Prehofer, C., “Higher-Order Narrowing with Definitional Trees,”Journal of Functional Programming, 9, 1, pp. 33–75, 1999.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33).
    “Curry: An Integrated Functional Logic Language,” (Hanus, M., ed.) Available at http://www.informatik.uni-kiel.de/~curry/report.html, 2000.Google Scholar
  34. 34).
    Hortalá-González, T. and Ullán, E., “An Abstract Machine Based System for a Lazy Narrowing Calculus,” inProc. of the 4th Fuji Int’l Symp. on Functional and Logic Programming (FLOPS’2001), pp. 216–232, Springer LNCS 2024, 2001.Google Scholar
  35. 35).
    Huet, G. and Lévy, J., “Computations in Orthogonal Rewriting Systems, Part I+II,”, inComputational Logic—Essays in Honor of Alan Robinson (J. Lassez and G. Plotkin, eds.), pp. 395–443, 1992.Google Scholar
  36. 36).
    Hullot, J., “Canonical Forms and Unification,” inProc. of the 5th Int’l Conf. on Automated Deduction, Springer LNCS 87, pp. 318–334, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37).
    Jones, N., Sestoft, P. and Søndergaard, H., “Mix: A Self-Applicable Partial Evaluator for Experiments in Compiler Generation,”Lisp and Symbolic Computation, 2, 1, pp. 9–50, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38).
    Julián-Iranzo, P.,Specialization of Lazy Functional Logic Programs, Ph.D. thesis, DSIC, Universidad Politécnica de Valencia May 2000. In Spanish.Google Scholar
  39. 39).
    Klop, J., “Term Rewriting Systems,” inHandbook of Logic in Computer Science (S. Abramsky, D. Gabbay, and T. Maibaum, eds.), I, Oxford University Press, pp. 1–112, 1992.Google Scholar
  40. 40).
    Kruskal, J., “Well-quasi-ordering, the Tree Theorem, and Vazsonyi’s Conjecture,”Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 95, pp. 210–225, 1960.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  41. 41).
    Lafave, L. and Gallagher, J., “Partial Evaluation of Functional Logic Programs in Rewriting-based Languages,” Technical Report CSTR-97-001, Department of Computer Science, University of Bristol, England, March 1997.Google Scholar
  42. 42).
    Lassez, J.L., Maher, M.J. and Marriott, K., “Unification Revisited,” inFoundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming (J. Minker, ed.), Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, Ca., pp. 587–625, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43).
    Leuschel, M., “On the Power of Homeomorphic Embedding for Online Termination,” inProc. of the 5th Int’l Static Analysis Symposium (SAS’98), Springer LNCS 1503, pp. 230–245, 1998.Google Scholar
  44. 44).
    Leuschel, M., de Schreye, D. and de Waal, A., “A Conceptual Embedding of Folding into Partial Deduction: Towards a Maximal Integration,” inProc. of the 1996 Joint Int’l Conf. and Symp. on Logic Programming, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 319–332, 1996.Google Scholar
  45. 45).
    Leuschel, M., Martens, B. and de Schreye, D., “Controlling Generalization and Polyvariance in Partial Deduction of Normal Logic Programs”,ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 20, 1, pp. 208–258., 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46).
    Lloyd, J. and Shepherdson, J., “Partial Evaluation in Logic Programming”,Journal of Logic Programming, 11, pp. 217–242, 1991.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47).
    Loogen, R., López-Fraguas, F. and Rodríguez-Artalejo, M., “A Demand Driven Computation Strategy for Lazy Narrowing”, inProc. of the 5th Int’l Symp. on Programming Language Implementation and Logic Programming (PLILP’93), Springer LNCS 714, pp. 184–200, 1993.Google Scholar
  48. 48).
    López-Fraguas, F. and Sánchez-Hernández, J., “TOY: A Multiparadigm Declarative System,” inProc. of the 10th Int’l Conf. on Rewriting Techniques and Applications (RTA’ 99), Springer LNCS 1631, pp. 244–247, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49).
    Lux, W. and Kuchen, H., “An Efficient Abstract Machine for Curry,” inProc. of the 8th Int’l Workshop on Functional and Logic Programming (WFLP’99), pp. 171–181, 1999.Google Scholar
  50. 50).
    Martens, B. and Gallagher, J., “Ensuring Global Termination of Partial Deduction while Allowing Flexible Polyvariance,” inProc. of the 12th Int’l Conf. on Logic Programming (ICLP’95), The MIT Press, pp. 597–611, 1995.Google Scholar
  51. 51).
    Moreno-Navarro, J. and Rodríguez-Artalejo, M., “Logic Programming with Functions and Predicates: The Language Babel,”Journal of Logic Programming, 12, 3, pp. 191–224, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52).
    Nemytykh, A., Pinchuk, V. and Turchin, V., “A Self-Applicable Supercompiler,” inPartial Evaluation, Proceedings, Springer LNCS 1110, pp. 322–337, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53).
    Pettorossi, A. and Proietti, M., “A Comparative Revisitation of Some Program Transformation Techniques”, inPartial Evaluation. Proceedings, Springer LNCS 1110, pp. 355–385, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54).
    Plasmeijer, R. and Eekelen, M.,Functional Programming and Parallel Graph Rewriting, Addison Wesley, 1993.Google Scholar
  55. 55).
    Reddy, U.S., “Narrowing as the Operational Semantics of Functional Languages,” inProc. of the 2nd IEEE Int’l Symp. on Logic Programmin, IEEE, New York, pp. 138–151, 1985.Google Scholar
  56. 56).
    Slagle, J., “Automated Theorem-Proving for Theories with Simplifiers, Commutativity and Associativity,”Journal of the ACM, 21, 4, pp. 622–642, 1974.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57).
    Sørensen, M., “Turchin’s Supercompiler Revisited: An Operational Theory of Positive Information Propagation,” Technical Report 94/7, Master’s Thesis, DIKU, University of Copenhagen, Denmark, 1994.Google Scholar
  58. 58).
    Sørensen, M. and Glück, R., “An Algorithm of Generalization in Positive Supercompilation,” inProc. of the 1995 Int’l Logic Programming Symposium (ILPS’95), The MIT Press, pp. 465–479, 1995.Google Scholar
  59. 59).
    Sørensen, M., Glück, R. and Jones, N., “A Positive Supercompiler,”Journal of Functional Programming, 6, 6, pp. 811–838, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60).
    Turchin, V., “The Concept of a Supercompiler,”ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 8, 3, pp. 292–325, July 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61).
    Vidal, G.,Semantics-Based Analysis and Transformation of Functional Logic Programs, Ph.D. thesis, DSIC, Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, Sept. 1996. In Spanish.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Ohmsha, Ltd. and Springer 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elvira Albert
    • 1
  • German Vidal
    • 1
  1. 1.Universidad Politécnica de ValenciaDSICValenciaSpain

Personalised recommendations